P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6486147.stm
Friday, 23 March 2007
Tense backdrop to Navy incident
In some ways, the capture of 15 Navy personnel in the Gulf seems to be a
mirror image of what happened in June 2004.
Then, as now, British servicemen on patrol in the disputed waters near the
southern border between Iraq and Iran found themselves arrested and held by
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces.
Though there are significant differences, like the exact location of the two
incidents.
On this occasion both US and UK naval officers have said the patrol boats
were on routine patrol inside Iraqi waters in the northern Gulf.
Whereas the incident in 2004 took place further north, in the narrow waters
of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and British officials were far less clear
about which side of the disputed border they were.
It was "appalling weather" and "a confused situation" they said at the
time - leaving open the possibility servicemen were indeed picked up in
Iranian waters.
Blindfolded appearance
At any event, on that occasion the eight men and their three patrol boats
were accused of entering Iranian territorial waters deliberately,
"fully-armed with sophisticated weapons, radios and other instruments",
according to the Iranians.
Some reports even suggested they might be put on trial in Iran.
They were held for three days, and paraded blindfolded on Iranian
television.
Only after they had made a televised apology for apparently losing their way
and straying into Iranian territory were they flown to Tehran and released
into the custody of the British embassy there.
Though the boats and equipment were never returned to Britain.
Strained relations
But the more significant difference between then and now is the changed
political climate.
In 2004, though relations between Britain and Iran were strained, they had
not deteriorated to the current level.
British diplomats were still insisting Iranian influence in southern Iraq,
though extensive, was largely benign.
And although the row over Iran's nuclear programme was brewing, a phone call
to Tehran from Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was able to draw on
previous good relations with the reformist Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal
Kharazzi, to help defuse the crisis.
Today the diplomatic landscape is more complicated.
Iraq influence claims
In the first place both Britain and the United States are now openly
accusing some on the Iranian side of fuelling the violence inside Iraq.
Just this morning the British commanding officer in Basra in southern Iraq
said he had been told by local tribal leaders that Iranian agents were
arming locals and paying them up to $500 a month to carry out attacks and,
he said, "all circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement."
Further north the Americans have made similar allegations.
And Iran has repeatedly voiced its anger at the arrest in January of five
members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard on suspicion of fuelling unrest. They
are still being held by the Americans.
But beyond strains over Iraq, there is also rising tension over Iran's
nuclear programme.
Since the previous reformist Iranian president was replaced by President
Ahmadinejad in June 2005, Western attempts to persuade Iran to curb its
nuclear ambitions have got nowhere.
Rising pressure
At every turn President Ahmadinejad has defiantly insisted that Iran will
pursue its legal right to enrich uranium.
That has led the UN Security Council to up the ante by imposing targeted
sanctions.
Now the pressure is about to be ratcheted up again.
The UN Security Council is poised to vote on a new resolution to widen those
sanctions.
At UN headquarters in New York this week an attempt by South Africa to delay
and dilute the new sanctions was firmly rebuffed by some of the
veto-wielding members - including Britain.
Now it looks as though the vote could come as early as Saturday.
President Ahmadinejad has even announced he wants to fly to New York to put
his case to the Security Council.
Supreme leader's warning
So is today's incident connected to the wider diplomatic context?
Well, it certainly could be.
Earlier this week the Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned
Western countries that if they continued to issue "threats and enforcement
of coercion and violence, then undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian
authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack".
And some Iranian officials briefing reporters privately have echoed that
warning.
But it also seems there is an intense debate going on between different
factions inside the Iranian government about how far it is really in the
country's interests to push confrontation.
A recent conference in Baghdad which both the Americans and Iranians
attended produced some sharp exchanges but also the hope that further
co-operation might be possible.
And alongside the veiled threats, Iranian diplomats have also signalled they
are ready for a compromise on the nuclear deal - so long as they are not
forced into a humiliating climb-down.
All of which suggests this latest seizure of British sailors may well be
part of a bigger diplomatic game.
But it is also still possible it is simply the result of a misunderstanding
in a confused area where territorial waters have for decades been disputed.
So whether the diplomatic background makes it easier or harder to extract
their release is difficult to tell.
At the very least, those conducting negotiations to end the crisis will have
to tread carefully.
Friday, 23 March 2007
Tense backdrop to Navy incident
In some ways, the capture of 15 Navy personnel in the Gulf seems to be a
mirror image of what happened in June 2004.
Then, as now, British servicemen on patrol in the disputed waters near the
southern border between Iraq and Iran found themselves arrested and held by
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces.
Though there are significant differences, like the exact location of the two
incidents.
On this occasion both US and UK naval officers have said the patrol boats
were on routine patrol inside Iraqi waters in the northern Gulf.
Whereas the incident in 2004 took place further north, in the narrow waters
of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and British officials were far less clear
about which side of the disputed border they were.
It was "appalling weather" and "a confused situation" they said at the
time - leaving open the possibility servicemen were indeed picked up in
Iranian waters.
Blindfolded appearance
At any event, on that occasion the eight men and their three patrol boats
were accused of entering Iranian territorial waters deliberately,
"fully-armed with sophisticated weapons, radios and other instruments",
according to the Iranians.
Some reports even suggested they might be put on trial in Iran.
They were held for three days, and paraded blindfolded on Iranian
television.
Only after they had made a televised apology for apparently losing their way
and straying into Iranian territory were they flown to Tehran and released
into the custody of the British embassy there.
Though the boats and equipment were never returned to Britain.
Strained relations
But the more significant difference between then and now is the changed
political climate.
In 2004, though relations between Britain and Iran were strained, they had
not deteriorated to the current level.
British diplomats were still insisting Iranian influence in southern Iraq,
though extensive, was largely benign.
And although the row over Iran's nuclear programme was brewing, a phone call
to Tehran from Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was able to draw on
previous good relations with the reformist Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal
Kharazzi, to help defuse the crisis.
Today the diplomatic landscape is more complicated.
Iraq influence claims
In the first place both Britain and the United States are now openly
accusing some on the Iranian side of fuelling the violence inside Iraq.
Just this morning the British commanding officer in Basra in southern Iraq
said he had been told by local tribal leaders that Iranian agents were
arming locals and paying them up to $500 a month to carry out attacks and,
he said, "all circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement."
Further north the Americans have made similar allegations.
And Iran has repeatedly voiced its anger at the arrest in January of five
members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard on suspicion of fuelling unrest. They
are still being held by the Americans.
But beyond strains over Iraq, there is also rising tension over Iran's
nuclear programme.
Since the previous reformist Iranian president was replaced by President
Ahmadinejad in June 2005, Western attempts to persuade Iran to curb its
nuclear ambitions have got nowhere.
Rising pressure
At every turn President Ahmadinejad has defiantly insisted that Iran will
pursue its legal right to enrich uranium.
That has led the UN Security Council to up the ante by imposing targeted
sanctions.
Now the pressure is about to be ratcheted up again.
The UN Security Council is poised to vote on a new resolution to widen those
sanctions.
At UN headquarters in New York this week an attempt by South Africa to delay
and dilute the new sanctions was firmly rebuffed by some of the
veto-wielding members - including Britain.
Now it looks as though the vote could come as early as Saturday.
President Ahmadinejad has even announced he wants to fly to New York to put
his case to the Security Council.
Supreme leader's warning
So is today's incident connected to the wider diplomatic context?
Well, it certainly could be.
Earlier this week the Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned
Western countries that if they continued to issue "threats and enforcement
of coercion and violence, then undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian
authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack".
And some Iranian officials briefing reporters privately have echoed that
warning.
But it also seems there is an intense debate going on between different
factions inside the Iranian government about how far it is really in the
country's interests to push confrontation.
A recent conference in Baghdad which both the Americans and Iranians
attended produced some sharp exchanges but also the hope that further
co-operation might be possible.
And alongside the veiled threats, Iranian diplomats have also signalled they
are ready for a compromise on the nuclear deal - so long as they are not
forced into a humiliating climb-down.
All of which suggests this latest seizure of British sailors may well be
part of a bigger diplomatic game.
But it is also still possible it is simply the result of a misunderstanding
in a confused area where territorial waters have for decades been disputed.
So whether the diplomatic background makes it easier or harder to extract
their release is difficult to tell.
At the very least, those conducting negotiations to end the crisis will have
to tread carefully.
